Hang Your Head in Shame

[hadassahchana[$]]

So, what techniques would you approve, for those who think this is horrible? What would you be willing to do to get an enemy to talk? Propose a method which would work, would not permanently harm an enemy, that you would allow to be done in order to get info.

[erik_kosberg]

Stokes Pennwalt said

Hahahaha.

And that's funny how?

[jgibson2[$]]

hadassahchana said

So, what techniques would you approve, for those who think this is horrible? What would you be willing to do to get an enemy to talk? Propose a method which would work, would not permanently harm an enemy, that you would allow to be done in order to get info.

Barney videos. Hours and hours of Barney videos.

[erik_kosberg]

Aaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!! Anything but that!!!!!!! Please!!!!! I'll tell you anything you want to know!!!! Make it stop!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stokes Pennwalt]

erik_kosberg said

And that's funny how?

I'm always amused when people take themselves so seriously that they begin to think their personal opinions hold sway over legal matters. I mean really, do you think that would be enough to convict Bush et al. at a war crimes tribunal?

[hadassahchana[$]]

I'll ask again: how ought interrigations be conducted? What techniques would be acceptable? Does what the enemy does to its prisoners make a difference to what we'll allow?

Here's another: how do you define torture- let's exclude Barney videos. How do you decide? Even more to the point, who gets to decide? Is there a continuum of techiniques, from acceptable tp not to horrendous? Or is it all bad?

Does protection of civilians or one's country factor into this?

[drmomentum[$]]

hadassahchana said

I'll ask again: how ought interrigations be conducted? What techniques would be acceptable? Does what the enemy does to its prisoners make a difference to what we'll allow?

Ethical problems are difficult.

I'd like to ask the practical questions first.

1) What techniques work?
1b) (What does "work" mean?)
2 Under what circumstances?
3) How oftedn do those actual circumstances occur?
4) What is the effect on the torturers?
5) Is there blowback as a result?

-JP

[hadassahchana[$]]

drmomentum said

Ethical problems are difficult.

I'd like to ask the practical questions first.

1) What techniques work?
1b) (What does "work" mean?)
2 Under what circumstances?
3) How oftedn do those actual circumstances occur?
4) What is the effect on the torturers?
5) Is there blowback as a result?

-JP

Ethical problems are difficult, I agree. I think I don't see as much of a moral dilemma here as some do. If it comes to getting info whic is going to prevent future attacks on us our on our troops, then we need to be able to interrogate them. Asking them to please tell the truth doesn't seem to work in many cases. I'm trying not to be snarky, and I'm certainly not aiming at you, JP, please don't be offended. It's just that I don't feel any compulsion to keep from hurting a terrorists's feelings.

Ok, I'll try to answer your questions, but I hope that some people who want me to be ashamed will answer some of mine, too. I think the questions I asked are relevant.

1. Define 'work'. If you mean "which techniques cause a prisoner to reveal info he'd prefer to have kept hidden?", then there are lists. Most of them techniques the other guys use may work (reread the news about Margaret Hassan) but we wouldn't use them. For instance, we do not use gang rape, drills through limbs, removal of teeth, hanging by arms until death, etc. Those are the easy ones to agree on. I also think that the many vets we have who actually did experience those things might feel angry at the uproar over waterboarding. More on that later.

2. Explain, [please? Do you mean who gets to use these techniques, or on which prisoners?

3. I can't find the answer to that. In my opinion, the people we choose to lead our army should have a say in that. I'm not willing to set guidelines until I think I know a whole lot more about it than I do now. I'm not saying the military should proceed unsupervised, I just think that most civilians aren't the ones to make those decisions.

4. A good question. However, I'm going to answer it with a question: what is the effect on those who have been 'really' tortured? There are more issues with waterboarding than anyone here or in most liberal blogs have chosen to discuss. Again, no snark intended. How does any aspect of military service affect those who participate? We all know there are people trained to elicit information, whether by use of waterboarding or of psychological techniques or other phsysical ways. Those people aren't forced to be in that role, those are volunteers who in turn are very carefully screened. I wouldn't be good at that, and it would affect me badly. *Unless* I'd lost a family member in the WTC, in which case I would be eliminated from volunteering because I might not be easy enough on the prisoner. Some people would be unable to perform this job. Sopme wouldn't do well in infantry roles, others wouldn't be able to do intellligence work.

5. Does it matter? I mean, there are lots of things which cause blowback. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do them, it means that the consequences sometimes have to be accepted. It's far more relevent to ask why we should appease terrorists in order to keep them from getting mad (or madder) at us. Not to be difficult, but that's why we're there already. The terrorists are already angry, that's why they're trying to harm our country, our civilians.


I watched a video of waterboarding. I did so because I'd heard that officers in the military are exposed to various sorts of interrogation techniques. STokes has told me that if captured, officers are the first to be interrogated by the enemy. I wanted to learn as much as I could find about waterboarding. I wanted more than the soundbite about waterboarding: 'Waterboarding is wrong!" "Waterboarding is torture!" and "We are the bad guys!".

Rhetoric rarely informs. Research does, but it takes a hell of a lot of digging. Wikipedia immediately defines waterboarding as torture. Wikipedia is edited by people who most times have no clue what is involved. I dsicovered that by reading through several pages on my google search. I also found a video of waterboarding. It looked really unpleasant. It looked like soemthing which would make me talk after about, oh, seconds. I'm not sure how many seconds I could last- but I'd be happy to find out. having watched a reporter be waterboarded and seeing the effects afterward, I am unconvinced that this is torture. I didn't find the following video horrible to watch, and the two oldest Horsemen have seen it:

Fox reporter gets waterboarded

In the video, the reporter could tap out if he wanted to stop. Exactly like a prisoner can- if he's willing to talk. In the video, the reporter is subjected to several rounds, just like prisoners.



Here is a list of actions, and I want someone to go through my list. Tell me which of these should be defined as torture, and which should be acceptible interrogation techniques.

a) lack of food or not enough food for days and days on end.
b) intense forced physical activity in very hot weather.
c) same as 'b' but without enough water
d) being forced to sit in dirty water containing snakes
e) being given difficult tasks while being verbally and physically attacked
f) sleep deprivation
e) no contact with friends and family
g) being forced to fight with others in your situation. Fights to proceed until last man standing
h)extended exposure to weather during extreme cold. Physical activity during cold with not enough protection. No opportunity to warm up after this technique.
i)pitting against each other- one man's mistake gets entire group punished, using fairly tough punishments - i.e. more food deprivation, more sleep deprivation, etc.
j)forcing them into a small room, filling it with CS gas and not giving them a gasmask. Turning out lights in room making it difficult to find the door after second releae of CS gas.


Please, go through this list. Add your own to my list. This is only a starting point, but at least talk about what is and what isn't torture instead of telling me to be ashamed. Think about this stuff before you decide.

[erik_kosberg]

"...CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

But it's not torture. In related news, I've got a fine bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

[hadassahchana[$]]

But if that's the point, wthen tell me what the problem is. How far would you go in order to gain info from an al Qaeda op?

[erik_kosberg]

As far as I'd want others to go when questioning our troops.

If it's okay for us to torture others, it's okay for others to torture us. Do we really want that? The fact that we're even having this discussion seems to me evidence that the terrorists have indeed won.

[jgibson2[$]]

I agree that we have a need to get information. I also agree that simply asking isn't generally going to get the information you need. I'm not convinced that the methods on your list -- or methods that everyone agrees are torture (like drills through limbs) get genuine information. That's one problem. How do you know that the information you're getting using these techniques is of any value at all? If the information is of limited or no value, then what is the point of all this?

hadassahchana said

1. Define 'work'.

You have to be able to elicit actual information as opposed to simply getting the prisoner to tell you what he thinks you want to hear so you'll stop whatever it is you're doing.

hadassahchana said

I am unconvinced that this is torture. I didn't find the following video horrible to watch, and the two oldest Horsemen have seen it:

Fox reporter gets waterboarded

In the video, the reporter could tap out if he wanted to stop. Exactly like a prisoner can- if he's willing to talk. In the video, the reporter is subjected to several rounds, just like prisoners.

The difference is that the reporter believed that the people doing the waterboarding would stop before he died, regardless of his response. Prisoners don't have that benefit and yes, I know that's the whole point.


Your list:
a) lack of food or not enough food for days and days on end.

2 entirely different techniques, IMHO. With the first, you don't know whether this will stop short of death. Inadequate food is uncomfortable, but takes much longer before it becomes life threatening. Total starvation, is IMHO torture. Inadequate food is not -- and may weaken someone's will, but isn't, of itself, likely to yield much in the way of results.

b) intense forced physical activity in very hot weather.

Whether or not this is torture depends on the point at which the people enforcing the activity will stop and the methods they are using to enforce the physical activity. Of itself, intense physical activity in hot weather is not, IMHO, torture. Shooting the guy next to you because he stopped is.


c) same as 'b' but without enough water

If water deprivation is to the point of endangering health, then it is torture.


d) being forced to sit in dirty water containing snakes

Poisonous snakes?

e) being given difficult tasks while being verbally and physically attacked

Verbally, not torture. Physically? Define, please - depends on the degree of "attack"

f) sleep deprivation

I'm a mom. My first child didn't sleep through the night until he was 4.5. Not torture.

e) no contact with friends and family

Not torture


g) being forced to fight with others in your situation. Fights to proceed until last man standing

I'll have to give this one more thought, but I'm leaning toward torture.

h)extended exposure to weather during extreme cold. Physical activity during cold with not enough protection. No opportunity to warm up after this technique.

Hypothermia, like intense heat is potentially life-threatening, so no opportunity to warm up, or pushing to the point of severe hypothermia would be torture.

i)pitting against each other- one man's mistake gets entire group punished, using fairly tough punishments - i.e. more food deprivation, more sleep deprivation, etc.

Pitting against each other is not torture, but the punishments might be.

j)forcing them into a small room, filling it with CS gas and not giving them a gasmask. Turning out lights in room making it difficult to find the door after second releae of CS gas.

Extremely unpleasant, granted, but I don't know how many people would talk using this technique. Aren't most military people familiar enough with CS gas to know that it won't actually kill them? If it's not going to work, what's the point?

[theworm[$]]

I feel like this thread is moving in circles and I'm not sure what some of the active posters here even believe anymore. The only thing that I know after watching that video, is that I don't know what is torture. Well, not true - I think I know what is torture, but I'm not sure I know what isn't.
Waterboarding - this reported did it under control circumstances by "friendly" torturers. They weren't going to let anything horrible happen to him. How different is that from when "the enemy" does it?

What are effective interogation techniquest - how the heck do I know. We're talking war - not war games. I just believe that there is some line that we can't let ourselves cross - and we can't draw that line for our enemies - so where is that line? I have no answers.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

hadassahchana said

I'll ask again: how ought interrigations be conducted? What techniques would be acceptable?

Here's an example of why torture, intimidation, and other violent methods aren't the only ways or, necessarily, the best ways to get information. It's an account of a successful interrogation that took place shortly after 9/11, with the goal of finding out the identity of the 9/11 hijackers and finding out enough about al Qaeda to be able to go ahead with the war in Afghanistan.

Ali Soufan was a Lebanese-American FBI agent. Abu Jandal was a jihadi whose name had come up in one of Soufan's previous (non-violent) interrogations as the emir of a guesthouse who had taken care of one of the hijackers when he was sick.

Lawrence Wright said

...As it happened, Abu Jandal was also
in Yemeni custody, and the Americans
arranged to interview him. He was a
large, powerful man with a dark beard.
“What are these infidels doing here?” he
demanded. He took a plastic chair and
turned it around, sitting with his arms
crossed and his back to the interrogators.
After some coaxing, Soufan got Abu
Jandal to face him, but he refused to look
him in the eye. Abu Jandal did want to
talk, however; he delivered a lengthy,
rapid-fire rant against America.

Soufan realized that the prisoner was
trained in counter-interrogation techniques,
since he easily agreed to things
that Soufan already knew—that he had
fought in Bosnia, Somalia, and Afghanistan,
for instance—and denied everything
else. Abu Jandal portrayed himself
as a good Muslim who had considered
jihad but had become disillusioned. He
thought of himself not as a killer but as
a revolutionary who was trying to rid the
world of evil, which he believed came
mainly from the United States, a country
he knew practically nothing about.

As the nights passed, Abu Jandal
warmed to Soufan. He told him that
he was in his early thirties, older than
most jihadis. He had grown up in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia—bin Laden’s home
town—and he was well read in religion.
He seemed to enjoy drinking tea and
lecturing the Americans on the radical
Islamist view of history; his sociability
was a weak spot.

Soufan flattered him and engaged
him in theological debate. Listening
to Abu Jandal’s diatribes, Soufan picked
up several useful details: that he had
grown tired of fighting; that he was
troubled by the fact that bin Laden
had sworn loyalty to Mullah Omar, the
leader of the Taliban, in Afghanistan;
and that he worried about his two children,
one of whom had a bone disease.
Soufan also noted that Abu Jandal declined
some pastries, because he was a
diabetic.

The next night, the Americans
brought some sugarless wafers, a courtesy
that Abu Jandal acknowledged.
Soufan also brought him a history of
America, in Arabic. Abu Jandal was
confounded by Soufan: a moderate
Muslim who could argue about Islam
with him, who was in the F.B.I., and
who loved America. He quickly read the
history that Soufan gave him and was
amazed to learn of the American Revolution
and its struggle against tyranny.

Soufan, meanwhile, was trying to determine
the boundaries of Abu Jandal’s
moral landscape. He asked him about
the proper way to wage jihad. Abu Jandal
eagerly talked about how a warrior
should treat his adversary in battle. The
Koran and other Islamic texts discuss
the ethics of conduct in warfare. Where
do they sanction suicide bombing? Soufan
asked him. Abu Jandal said that the
enemy had an advantage in weapons,
but the suicide bombers evened the
score. “These are our missiles,” he said.
What about women and children? Soufan
asked. Aren’t they supposed to be
protected? Soufan pointed to the bombings
of the American embassies in East
Africa. He recalled a woman on a bus in
front of the Nairobi embassy, who, after
the bomb exploded, was found clutching
her baby, trying to protect him from
the flames. Both had been incinerated.
What sin had the mother committed?
What about the soul of her child? “God
will give them their rewards in the Hereafter,”
Abu Jandal said. Besides, he
added, “can you imagine how many
joined bin Laden after the embassy
bombings? Hundreds came and asked
to be martyrs.” Soufan countered that
many of the East African victims—perhaps
most of them—were Muslims.
Several times, Abu Jandal quoted clerical
authorities or chapters from the
Koran, but he found that Soufan was
more than a match for him on theological
matters. Abu Jandal finally asserted
that, because the embassy bombings
were on a Friday, when the victims should
have been in the mosque, they were not
real Muslims.

On the fifth night, Soufan slammed a
news magazine on the table between
them. The magazine had photographs of
the airplanes crashing into the Twin
Towers—graphic shots of people trapped
in the buildings and jumping a hundred
stories. “Bin Laden did this,” Soufan told
him. Abu Jandal had heard about the attacks,
but he didn’t know many details.
He studied the pictures in amazement.
He said that they looked like a “Hollywood
production,” but the scale of the
atrocity visibly shook him.

Soufan and Abu Jandal were joined
in the small interrogation room by Mc-
Fadden and two Yemeni investigators.
Everyone sensed that Soufan was closing
in. American and allied troops were
preparing to go to war in Afghanistan,
but they desperately needed more information
about the structure of Al Qaeda,
the locations of hideouts, and the plans
for escape—all of which American intelligence
officials hoped Abu Jandal
could supply.

Coincidentally, a local Yemeni paper
was on a shelf under the coffee table.
Soufan showed it to Abu Jandal. The
headline read, “TWO HUNDRED YEMENI
SOULS PERISH IN NEW YORK ATTACK.”
(At the time, the death-toll estimates
were in the tens of thousands.) Abu Jandal
read the headline and drew a breath.
“God help us,” he muttered. Soufan
asked what kind of Muslim would do
such a thing. Abu Jandal insisted that
the Israelis must have committed the attacks
on New York and Washington.
“The Sheikh is not that crazy,” he said
of bin Laden.

Soufan then took out a book of mug
shots containing photographs of known
Al Qaeda members and of the hijackers.
He asked Abu Jandal to identify them.
The Yemeni flipped through them
quickly and closed the book.
Soufan opened the book again and
told him to take his time. “Some of
them I have in custody,” he said, hoping
that Abu Jandal wouldn’t realize that
the hijackers were all dead. Abu Jandal
paused for a half-second on the photograph
of Shehhi, the pilot of United
Airlines Flight 175, before he started to
turn the page. “You’re not done with
this one,” Soufan said. “Ramadan, 1999.
He’s sick. You’re his emir, and you take
care of him.” Abu Jandal looked at Soufan
in shock. “When I ask you a question,
I already know the answer,” said
Soufan. “If you’re smart, you’ll tell me
the truth.”

Abu Jandal conceded that he knew
Shehhi and gave his Al Qaeda nom de
guerre, Abdullah al-Sharqi. He did the
same with Khaled al-Mihdhar and five
others, including Mohammed Atta,
the lead hijacker. But he still insisted
that bin Laden would never commit
such an action. It was the Israelis, he
maintained.

“I know for sure that the people who
did this were Al Qaeda guys,” said Soufan.
He took seven photographs out of
the book and laid them on the table.
“How do you know?” Abu Jandal
asked. “Who told you?”

“You did,” said Soufan. “These are
the hijackers. You just identified them.”
Abu Jandal turned pale. He covered
his face with his hands. “Give me a moment,”
he pleaded. Soufan walked out of
the room. When he came back, he asked
Abu Jandal what he thought now. “I
think the Sheikh went crazy,” he said.
And then he told Soufan everything he
knew.

"The Agent" by Lawrence Wright (pdf file)

[erik_kosberg]

rmthunter said

Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases - washingtonpost.com

At least Janet Reno and others are standing up to the thugs in the White House.

[hadassahchana[$]]

jgibson2 said

c) same as 'b' but without enough water

If water deprivation is to the point of endangering health, then it is torture.

Dehydration to the point of collapse, limb spasms, etc.

d) being forced to sit in dirty water containing snakes

Poisonous snakes?

Yes.

e) being given difficult tasks while being verbally and physically attacked

Verbally, not torture. Physically? Define, please - depends on the degree of "attack"

Shouting, giving conflicting directions, pushing, shaking, smacking, just generally roughing up.

f) sleep deprivation

I'm a mom. My first child didn't sleep through the night until he was 4.5. Not torture.

I see what you mean, but my oldest didn't sleep for the first four days after his birth. I was hallucinating by this point, and I can see how using sleep deprivation as a form of getting peopple to talk might have some value.

g) being forced to fight with others in your situation. Fights to proceed until last man standing

I'll have to give this one more thought, but I'm leaning toward torture.

There are a few things here which could be pyschologically damaging or at least very disturbing.

h)extended exposure to weather during extreme cold. Physical activity during cold with not enough protection. No opportunity to warm up after this technique.

Hypothermia, like intense heat is potentially life-threatening, so no opportunity to warm up, or pushing to the point of severe hypothermia would be torture.

j)forcing them into a small room, filling it with CS gas and not giving them a gasmask. Turning out lights in room making it difficult to find the door after second releae of CS gas.

Extremely unpleasant, granted, but I don't know how many people would talk using this technique. Aren't most military people familiar enough with CS gas to know that it won't actually kill them? If it's not going to work, what's the point?

But are we only talking about torturing military? If so, then waterboarding surely shouldn't be an issue since our officers have been waterboarded.

The next big question, then, is whther it works or not. Using some of these techniques- would that work to start off an interrogation?

And Emma, sitting around having coffee and feeling all warm and connected might work in some cases. I somehow don't see this as being an effective technique to use on some al Qaeda members.

Delia said

Waterboarding - this reported did it under control circumstances by "friendly" torturers. They weren't going to let anything horrible happen to him. How different is that from when "the enemy" does it?

Well, since eve the Khmer rouge reportedly didn't kill people when waterboarding, it's most likely safe to assume that it isn't used in general to kill people. yet, it is a way to get people to agree to talk without causing any sort of long-term damage. I think that the reporter\;s experience was pretty valid, then, since although he knew he wouldn't be killed, he still had an extreme phsyiological response. It's scary, yes. Being interrogated isn't supposed to be fun. I'm thinking that perhaps people who don't want to be interrogated hadn't ought to become terrorists.

I don't think this thread is going in circles, I just would like to see people think about all the issues instead of declaring waterboarding to be torture. I think we're heading closer all the time to the point where those who insist that they respect our troops even while hating the war are soon going to be transferring their hatred to the soldiers. I would like to see a sort of 'big picture' discussion about this, rather than standing in a circle calling anyone a thug.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

erik_kosberg said

But it's not torture. In related news, I've got a fine bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

Alright, so can you explain what makes it torture? I would be curious to know what your definition of "torture" is, and why it exceeds the threshold in this case.

Also, every technique listed in that ABC article is routinely employed against our own servicemembers during training exercises already. I don't see why it matters that we use it on our enemies too. I have no problem with them interrogating our guys that way. Personally I would prefer it to some of the other things they have been subjected to.

jgibson2 said

The difference is that the reporter believed that the people doing the waterboarding would stop before he died, regardless of his response. Prisoners don't have that benefit and yes, I know that's the whole point.

If the subject is being interrogated according to US doctrine then they will be told before the interrogation begins that their life will not be in danger, and they will not be subject to bodily harm.

It seems counter-intuitive, but even if you know you aren't going to be seriously harmed, waterboarding still sucks. The fear that it imparts on you isn't a cognitive one, like "I am stuck underwater, therefore I will die". It is a reflexive one, like the fear of zero-G that makes skydiving and rollercoasters such a rush. It appeals to our hard-wired instincts, so whether or not the subject thinks they're going to die shouldn't make much of a difference. It is also damned uncomfortable, especially when you're kept cold. And not given a chance to dry out between sessions. Hoo boy.

hadassahchana said

I'll ask again: how ought interrigations be conducted? What techniques would be acceptable?

If it gets results and doesn't cause any grievous bodily harm then I probably wouldn't object to it personally. The only item on your list that I have a problem with is (G), because that could lead to serious and permanent bodily harm. The punishment should only persist until compliance is achieved, and no longer. A very broad answer to a very broad question, I guess, but I'm not a professional interrogator.

AuntieEmma said

Here's an example of why torture, intimidation, and other violent methods aren't the only ways or, necessarily, the best ways to get information. It's an account of a successful interrogation that took place shortly after 9/11, with the goal of finding out the identity of the 9/11 hijackers and finding out enough about al Qaeda to be able to go ahead with the war in Afghanistan.

That story is awesome. Here is another.